臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

使用匿名捐贈者的精卵是人工生殖手術中的一個方法，然而在多次使用同一捐贈者的精卵時，卻可能會衍生出一些風險。從文獻探討可以發現，學者擔心的風險主要集中在「近親交配的問題」上，這個問題除了倫理、道德、法律因素上的考量之外，從生物醫學的角度擔心的是這些人的後代得到遺傳疾病的機率可能會較一般人高。但是當精卵捐贈的供給與需求不平衡時，許多人會想要利用多次使用同一捐贈者的細胞來解決問題；然而，各國對於這方面的規定差異甚大，法國的上限是5次，英國是10次，西班牙是6次，台灣是1次，荷蘭卻高達25次，這些限制的訂定多半沒有科學上明確的道理說明；因此，本研究嘗試從統計學的角度，採用遺傳疾病發生率及近親交配係數為觀點，提出可允許最大活產數之選擇策略。
本文在修正過去學者估計近親交配次數的模式後，並提出估算其變異數之方法；再從機率的觀點出發，提出依不同疾病之遺傳模式特色，估計其因精卵捐贈而導致疾病發生率的方法，在給定一可容許的發生率之下，或是將發生率再轉換成醫療照護成本並給定成本上限，即可決定可允許之最大活產數。從結果可以發現，盛行率較高之疾病受同一捐贈者細胞多次使用的影響較大，若考量此類疾病的影響，則需降低可允許之最大活產數；另外，從因artificial insemination by donor (AID)而導致的疾病發生率與族群中疾病盛行率的比值來看，隱性遺傳疾病受到同一捐贈者細胞多次使用的影響較大。此外，本文也延續de Boer et al. (1995)和Curie-Cohen (1980)的想法使用近親交配係數做探討，但不同於這些學者之觀點，本研究採用族群之觀點來估計近親交配係數，在給定一閾值後，便可得知可允許之最大活產數；結果顯示，當族群中現有的近親交配係數愈高時，可允許最大活產數就會愈少；當族群中表徵因素的同型交配行為愈強烈時，可允許最大活產數也會愈少。

Using anonymous donors’ gametes, a treatment in assisted reproductive technology (ART), may result in inadvertent consanguineous mating, especially when a single donor’s gametes are multiply used. Unwitting consanguinities between offspring of one single donor and his or her unknown relatives may lead to higher risks of transmission of hereditary diseases. However, when supply and demand of artificial insemination by donor (AID) are unbalanced, multiple use of one single donor’s gametes becomes a solution. In that case, its influence on medical and genetic aspects should be carefully evaluated, as well as its social, cultural and legal implications. The choice of maximum number of offspring per donor varies greatly in different countries. For example, the limit in France is 5, 10 in UK, 6 in Spain, 1 in Taiwan, and 25 in The Netherlands. Most of these limits, however, do not result from specific scientific studies. In this study, two approaches are discussed for setting the maximum number of live births per donor.
First, I incorporate the risk of certain hereditary disease in the computation of number of consanguinities to evaluate the possible elevation of incidence and prevalence. For any given disease of interest, I construct its incidence due to donor insemination (DI) from probabilistic perspective. Based on information from disease characteristics, population data, donor statistics, and tolerable increased incidence or medical costs, one can decide the figure for the maximal limit. The results show that there will be more new cases due to AID when the prevalence is high. In addition, when using the ratio of incidence to prevalence as the criterion, the risk owing to DI of autosomal recessive inheritance disease is higher than that of disease of other mode of inheritance.
The second approach, following the same idea from de Boer et al. (1995) and Curie-Cohen (1980), adopts the population perspective to derive coefficient of inbreeding including DI. The modification includes adding the current constant coefficient of inbreeding in a given society with no AID children, and an extra coefficient of inbreeding due to AID with respect to the number of live births per donor. Then, maximum number of live births per donor will be decided by setting a threshold for the tolerable coefficient of inbreeding. The results indicate that the larger coefficient of inbreeding in a population without AID is, the smaller number of live births per donor is and the more significantly assortive mating for phenotype is, the smaller number of live births per donor is.

目　　錄
第壹章 前言 1
第一節 研究動機 1
第二節 研究架構 2
第貳章 近親交配係數的背景概念介紹 5
第一節 三種估計近親交配係數(COEFFICIENT OF INBREEDING, F)的觀點 5
第一回 以族群整體觀點估計(estimate coefficient of inbreeding from population) (Wright, 1931) 6
第二回 以個體觀點用族譜估計(estimate coefficient of inbreeding from pedigrees) 8
第三回 以近親結婚的比例估計(average level of coefficient of inbreeding) 11
第二節 估計因ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION BY DONOR造成的近親交配係數 12
第一回 AID導致的近親交配種類 12
第二回 AID導致非故意的近親交配次數(frequency of inadvertent consanguineous matings, Y) 13

第三回 可交配對數的期望值(number of potential marriages between children of a single donor, ) 14
第四回 交配機率(probability of mating, P) 15
第參章 估計AID導致非故意的近親交配次數(Y) 21
第一節 捐贈人數(D) 22
第二節 人工生殖手術的成功率(S) 22
第三節 估計可交配對數的期望值( ) 23
第四節 估計交配機率(P) 25
第一回 估計年齡因素同型交配(assortative mating for age)的機率 25
第二回 估計表徵因素同型交配(assortative mating for phenotype)的係數Cr 29
第三回 估計地理因素同型交配(assortative mating for geographical location)的機率Qr 29
第五節 每年結婚對數(M) 30
第六節 估計AID導致非故意的近親交配次數(Y)的變異數 30
第肆章 可允許最大活產數之選擇策略——以遺傳疾病發生率為觀點 33
第一節 以單基因自體隱性遺傳(AUTOSOMAL RECESSIVE INHERITANCE)疾病為例 35
第一回 計算各種情況下AID小孩及其後代得病之機率 35
第二回 估計AID對遺傳疾病發生率之影響 37
第三回 結論 40
第二節 以單基因自體顯性遺傳(AUTOSOMAL DOMINANT INHERITANCE)疾病為例 44
第一回 計算各種情況下AID小孩及其後代得病之機率 45
第二回 估計AID對遺傳疾病發生率之影響 46
第三回 結論 49
第三節 以多基因型遺傳疾病(POLYGENETIC DISORDERS)為例 49
第一回 精神分裂症(schizophrenia) 51
第二回 躁鬱症(bipolar disorder) 53
第三回 憂鬱症(depressive disorder) 55
第四回 結論 57
第四節 總結 57
第伍章 可允許最大活產數之選擇策略——以族群中平均近親交配係數為觀點 61
第一節 因AID而導致的近親交配係數(AVERAGE F DUE TO AID) 61
第二節 因AID而導致的近親交配係數(AVERAGE F DUE TO AID)的變異數 64
第三節 結論 66
第一回 考慮五等親以內所有提到的親屬關係 67
第二回 考慮四等親以內或半同胞的親屬關係 71
第三回 考量不同捐贈人數及成功率之結果 72
第陸章 結論與討論 73
第一節 結論 73
第一回 因AID而導致非故意的近親交配次數 73
第二回 多次使用同一捐贈者細胞對遺傳疾病之影響 74
第三回 多次使用同一捐贈者細胞對族群中近親交配係數之影響 76
第二節 討論 77
第一回 AID導致非故意近親交配次數(Y)的統計推論 77
第二回 可允許最大活產數之選擇策略 81
第三回 與Curie-Cohen及de Boer et al.方法之差異 81
第四回 表徵因素同型交配(assortative mating for phenotype, Cr)大小之意義與限制 83
第五回 不同捐贈人數及成功率之影響 84
第六回 地區性限制 85
第七回 親屬關係之選擇 85
第八回 現況與未來 87
參考文獻 91

Alvarez, L. (2004, September 30) Spreading Scandinavian Genes, Without Viking Boats. New York Times.
Bittles, A. and Sullivan, S. (2005, February 7) Consang.net Retrieved April 3, 2006, from http://www.consang.net
California Cryobank, Inc. (2003) Retrieved March 14, 2006, from http://www.cryobank.com/
Cavalli-Sforza, L.L., Kimura, M. and Barrai, I. (1966) The Probability of Consanguineous Marriages. Genetics, 54, 37-60.
Children to Know Donor Facts. (2002, August 22) The Times.
Cryos International Sperm Bank Ltd. Retrieved March 14, 2006, from http://www.cryos.dk/
Cryogenic Laboratories, Inc. (2005) Retrieved March 14, 2006, from http://www.cryolab.com/Default.aspx
Curie-Cohen, M. (1980) The Frequency of Consanguineous Matings Due to Multiple Use of Donors in Artificial Insemination. Am J Hum Genet, 32, 589-600.
de Boer, A., Oosterwijk, J.C. and Rigters-Aris, C.A.E. (1995) Determination of a Maximum Number of Artificial Inseminations by Donor Children Per Sperm Donor. Fertil Steril, 63(2), 419-421.
Deech, R. (1998) Legal and Ethical Responsibilities of Gamete Banks. Hum Reprod, 13(suppl. 2), 80-89.
ESHRE (2006) Assisted Reproductive Technology in Europe, 2002. Results Generated from European Registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod, Advance Access published April 3, 1-18.
Falconer, D.S. and Mackay, T.F.C. (1996) Introduction to Quantitative Genetics, 4th ed., Essex, England : Longman.
Fairfax Cryobank. (2006) Retrieved March 14, 2006, from http://www.fairfaxcryobank.com/
Gardner, M. (2005, March 30) Sperm Donors No Longer Bank on Anonymity. Christian Science Monitor.
Gottesman, I.I. and Wolfgram, D.L. (1991) Schizoprenia Genesis: The Origins of Madness, New York: Freeman.
Hajnal, J. (1960) Artificial Insemination and the Frequency of Incestuous Marriages. J R Stat Soc Series A, 123, 182-194.
Harmon, A. (2005, November 20) Hello, I''m Your Sister. Our Father Is Donor 150. New York Times.
Hedrick, P.W. (2005) Genetics of Populations, 3rd ed., Sudbury: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
Hwu, H.G., Yeh, E.K. and Chang, L.Y. (1989) Prevalence of Psychiatric Disorders in Taiwan Defined by Chinese Diagnostic Interview Schedule. Acta Psychiatr Scand, 79(2), 136-147.
Janssens, P.M.W. (2003) No Reason for a Reduction in the Number of Offspring per Sperm Donor Because of Possible Transmission of Autosomal Dominant Disease. Hum Reprod, 18(4), 669-671.
Janssens, P.M.W., Simons, A.H.M., van Kooij, R.J., Blokzijl, E. and Dunselman, G.A.J. (2006) A New Dutch Law Rgulating Provision of Identifying Information of Donors to Offspring: Background, Content and Impact. Hum Reprod, 21(4), 852-856.
Kumar, V., Cotran, R.S. and Robbins, S.L. (2000) Basic Pathology, 6th ed., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: W. B. Saunders Company.
Le Lannou, D., Thépot, F. and Jouannet, P. (1998) Multicentre Approaches to Donor Insemination in the French CECOS Federation: Nationwide Evaluation, Donor Matching, Screening for Genetic Diseases and Consanguinity. Hum Reprod, 13(suppl. 2), 35-54.
Li, C.C. and Horvitz D.G. (1953) Some Methods of Estimating the Inbreeding Coefficient. Am J Hum Genet, 5(2), 107-117.
Murray, C.J.L. and Lopez, A.D. (1997) Alternative Projections of Mortality and Disability by Cause 1990–2020: Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet, 349(9064), 1498-1504.
Remick, R.A. (2002) Diagnosis and Management of Depression in Primary Care: a Clinical Update and Review. CMAJ, 167(11), 1253-1260.
Reynolds, M.A., Schieve L.A., Martin, J.A., Jeng, G. and Macaluso M. (2003) Trends in Multiple Births Conceived Using Assisted Reproductive Technology, United States, 1997–2000. Pediatrics, 111(5), 1159-1162.
Schwimmer, B.E. (2003, August) Kinship and Social Organization. Retrieved August 24, 2005, from http://www.umanitoba.ca/anthropology/tutor/descent/cognatic/degree.html
Skene, L. (2000) An Overview of Assisted Reproductive Technology Regulation in Australia and New Zealand. Tex Int Law J, 35(1), 31-49.
Snustad, D.P. and Simmons, M.J. (2003) Principles of Genetics, 3rd ed., New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Stuttaford, T. (2005, January 17) Sperm Donors Prefer to Remain Nameless. The Times.
Sullivan, P.F., Kendler, K.S. and Neale, M.C. (2003) Schizophrenia as a Complex Trait: Evidence from a Meta-analysis of Twin Studies. Arch Gen Psychiatry, 60(12), 1187-1192.
Tsuang, M.T., Stone, W.S. and Faraone, S.V. (2001) Genes, Environment and Schizophrenia. Br J Psychiatry, 178(suppl. 40), s18-s24.
Weir, B.S. (1996) Genetic Data Analysis II : Methods for Discrete Population Genetic Data, Sunderland, Mass. : Sinauer Associates.
World Health Organization (2005) Retrieved November 10, 2005, from http://www.who.int/mental_health/management/depression/definition/en/
Wright, S. (1922) Systems of Mating. II. the Effects of Inbreeding on the Genetic Composition of a Population. Genetics, 6, 124-143.
Wright, S. (1931) Evolution in Mendelian Populations. Genetics, 16, 97-159.
田思怡（民93年1月18日）。美國將宣布，人工受孕寶寶有權找生父。聯合報，A14版。
行政院衛生署國民健康局（民92）台灣地區民國87年至90年人工協助生殖技術施行結果分析，台北市。
行政院衛生署國民健康局（民94）民國九十一年台灣地區人工協助生殖施行結果分析報告，台北市。
胡海國（民91）精神分裂症之社區流行病學，當代醫學，29(9)，717-727。
倪婉君（民95年3月2日）。精子都來自他，11個媽組同父俱樂部。聯合晚報。
陳建仁（民88）流行病學：原理與方法，臺北市：聯經。
張書森、胡海國（民93）躁症之社區流行病學，當代醫學，31(4)，272-281。
張書森、胡海國（民94）重鬱症之社區流行病學，當代醫學，32(4)，330-340。
馮克芸（民91年6月16日）捐精者見孩子，美近打破禁忌，聯合報，A12版。
黃靜宜（民92年2月11日）。87∼89年台灣共誕生名試管兒。民生報，A11版。
董更生（民93年11月28日）。明年四月起英倫捐精者都要具名…丹麥精子到英倫搶生意。聯合報，A14版。
楊惠君（民91年8月1日）。冷凍卵子現「生」機，申請者大增。民生報，A15版。
蔡輔仁（民91）與基因共舞——遺傳疾病淺說，初版，臺北市：罕見疾病基金會。
霍達文、亞胡斯（民92年12月29日）。丹麥輸出什麼？「精子」其中一項。聯合報，A14版。
戴政（民91）遺傳流行病學：基因定位之遺傳設計與分析方法，臺北縣新店市：藝軒。